Fifth-Grade Children s Daily Experiences of Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions: Moderating Effects of Sex and Peer Rejection

Transcription

1 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: DOI /s Fifth-Grade Children s Daily Experiences of Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions: Moderating Effects of Sex and Peer Rejection Michael T. Morrow & Julie A. Hubbard & Lydia J. Barhight & Amanda K. Thomson Published online: 27 March 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract This study examined the relations of fifth-grade children s (181 boys and girls) daily experiences of peer victimization with their daily negative emotions. Children completed daily reports of peer victimization and negative emotions (sadness, anger, embarrassment, and nervousness) on up to eight school days. The daily peer victimization checklist was best represented by five factors: physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, property attacks, and social rebuff. All five types were associated with increased negative daily emotions, and several types were independently linked to increased daily negative emotions, particularly physical victimization. Girls demonstrated greater emotional reactivity in sadness to social manipulation than did boys, and higher levels of peer rejection were linked to greater emotional reactivity to multiple types of victimization. Sex and peer rejection also interacted, such that greater rejection was a stronger indicator of emotional reactivity to victimization in boys than in girls. Keywords Daily diary. Peer victimization. Negative emotion. Peer rejection Peer victimization is a common and painful experience in the daily lives of many children. Roughly 10 % of youth are regularly victimized by peers (Olweus 1993; Perry et al. M. T. Morrow (*): A. K. Thomson Department of Psychology, Arcadia University, 124 Boyer Hall, 450 S. Easton Road, Glenside, PA 19038, USA morrowm@arcadia.edu J. A. Hubbard Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA L. J. Barhight Behavior Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA 1988), and these experiences appear increasingly stable by late elementary school (Perry et al. 2001). Moreover, decades of research reveal that peer victimization is linked to numerous adjustment problems (Card and Hodges 2008; Grills and Ollendick 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000) and several psychiatric disorders (Kumpulainen 2008). However, few theorists have articulated the process through which peer victimization contributes to psychopathology. Previous research has also shed scant light on the nature and impact of children s day-to-day experiences of victimization. Background on Peer Victimization and Emotional Functioning Despite these limitations, Coie (1990) offers a helpful framework for conceptualizing a pathway between children s daily peer victimization and daily psychological functioning. In this model, peer rejection (the experience of being disliked and not liked by peers) promotes negative treatment by peers, which in turn, impairs daily psychological functioning. With repeated exposure, the daily effects of these experiences give rise to internalizing and externalizing patterns of psychopathology. Thus, recurrent experiences of peer victimization may contribute to serious and stable adjustment problems through their cumulative impact on daily functioning. With regard to daily emotional functioning, children are theorized to experience and engage in a variety of affective processes during social encounters (Lemerise and Arsenio 2000). While some processes occur automatically (e.g., increased arousal when physically threatened), others result from effortful processing (e.g., modulating the expression of fear to save face among peers). Negative social experiences are likely to activate basic emotions (e.g., sadness, anger, or fear; Izard 2007), as well as self-conscious emotions (e.g., embarrassment or shame; Lewis 1992). When peer

2 1090 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: victimization recurs, repeated negative daily emotions may cumulate to contribute to stable maladaptive patterns of emotional functioning. Numerous studies have linked peer victimization to negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, sadness, shame, anger, and general negative emotionality). However, a majority of this research assessed children s emotional experiences retrospectively for the past few weeks or months or as stable, trait-like dimensions (e.g., Dill et al. 2004; Hanish et al. 2004; Hawker and Boulton 2000). Therefore, we are unable to draw conclusions from this work regarding the daily connections of peer victimization and emotions, which is important for understanding the day-to-day process through which peer victimization may give rise to emotional maladjustment. The Present Study In this study, we build on past research by adopting a dailyreport methodology to assess children s daily experiences of peer victimization and negative emotions. Compared to traditional self-report tools, daily reports offer a more fine-grained and ecologically valid assessment of daily events (Iida et al. 2012). They also reduce retrospective bias by minimizing the time between participants experiences and their reports of these events (Bolger et al. 2003). Thus, daily measurement is likely to offer a more comprehensive and reliable snapshot of children s experiences of victimization and emotions. We also expand upon past work by addressing three notable gaps. First, we examine multiple types of daily peer victimization and evaluate their distinguishability as unique experiences. Second, we explore the daily relations of multiple types of victimization with several negative emotions. In doing so, we hope to offer a clearer picture of the relations of specific types of peer victimization with certain negative emotions. Third, we evaluate two potential moderators of emotional reactivity to peer victimization in order to identify child characteristics linked to stronger emotional reactions to peer victimization. Multiple Types of Daily Peer Victimization A majority of the research reviewed above assessed peer victimization as a singular construct; however, theorists have argued the importance of studying multiple types of peer victimization (Sandstrom and Cillessen 2003). Several researchers have performed factor analyses to distinguish different subtypes of victimization (e.g., Crick et al. 1999; Crick and Grotpeter 1996; Mynard and Joseph 2000; Sandstrom and Cillessen 2003). Collectively, they have identified four subtypes: physical victimization, verbal victimization, social victimization, and property attacks. Regarding social victimization, multiple terms (e.g., indirect, relational, social) have been used to characterize peer aggression aimed to harm children s social functioning that occurs directly or indirectly (for a discussion, see Card et al. 2008). In this study, we examine two potential subtypes: social manipulation and social rebuff. Social manipulation is intended to damage children s peer relations or social status and occurs indirectly (Mynard and Joseph 2000); that is, it is orchestrated by peers who influence others to treat children in negative ways (e.g., peers make a child s friends turn against him). In contrast, social rebuff occurs directly between perpetrators and targets and captures experiences of being ignored, left out, and excluded (Dodge et al. 1982; Putallaz and Wasserman 1989). For the current study, we assessed the five types of peer victimization experiences outlined above (physical victimization, verbal victimization, property attacks, social manipulation, and social rebuff) at the daily level. To accomplish this, we constructed a new checklist to capture day-to-day variation in children s experiences of each type of peer victimization. In evaluating this measure, we hypothesized that the five types of victimization would co-occur on a daily basis, yet also emerge as distinct daily experiences. Daily Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions At least two studies have simultaneously assessed children s daily peer victimization and daily emotional functioning. Nishina and Juvonen (2005) collected daily reports of sixth-graders peer victimization and negative emotions over four or five school days. Across two samples, they found that children reported greater anxiety, anger, and humiliation on days they also reported peer victimization. Nishina (2012) assessed sixthand ninth-graders daily experiences of peer victimization, worry, and humiliation. Students reported greater humiliation and worry on days they experienced victimization by peers. Accordingly, children s daily negative emotions appear to fluctuate with their daily experiences of peer victimization; however, these studies do not reveal whether different types of victimization are more strongly associated with specific emotions. If certain types of daily peer victimization are more powerful predictors of children s daily negative emotions, these experiences may confer greater risk for long-term emotional difficulties. This information could guide prevention programs to target the most potent types of peer victimization. Accordingly, we evaluated the daily relations of the five victimization subtypes with four negative emotions (sadness, anger, embarrassment, and nervousness). We carefully assessed the separate relations of each type of victimization with every negative emotion, as well as their relative associations, by simultaneously testing the relations of all five subtypes with each emotion. As a result, we were able to assess whether certain daily victimization experiences are uniquely linked to day-to-day variation in particular negative emotions. We generally hypothesized that children would

3 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: report greater negative emotion on days they encountered more instances of peer victimization. Moderators of Emotional Reactivity to Daily Peer Victimization When faced with peer stress, some children are more likely to experience negative emotions or feel them more intensely (Lemerise and Arsenio 2000). Studies have linked peer victimization to abnormal emotional functioning, including elevated physiological arousal, heightened anger intensity, and emotion dysregulation (Champion and Clay 2007;Hanish et al. 2004; Shields and Cicchetti 2001; Woods and White 2005). However, little is known about the specific factors that influence emotional reactivity to peer victimization. By exploring such factors, it may be possible to identify children who are more susceptible to the emotional impact of peer victimization and require greater support in coping with their victimization experiences. We evaluated whether two child characteristics, sex and peer rejection, moderate the daily relations of peer victimization with negative emotions. Specifically, we tested whether certain types of victimization are more strongly linked to daily reactivity in negative emotions for boys versus girls and across children at different levels of peer rejection. We also examined the interactive effect of these two characteristics to assess whether peer rejection is associated with differing levels of emotional reactivity to victimization across gender. These tests allowed us to examine whether gender, peer rejection, and their combination, may be helpful in identifying children at greatest risk for the emotional maladjustment linked to peer victimization. We investigated these variables because both have been found to moderate various relations between peer relations and psychosocial adjustment (Coie 1990; RoseandRudolph2006). Sex Rose and Rudolph (2006) theorize that boys and girls are socialized via same-sex interactions to react and respond to stressful peer encounters in distinct ways. Research indicates that girls value friendships, hold communal goals, and receive emotional benefits from relationships more than boys do (Benenson and Benarroch 1998; Bukowski et al. 1994; Chung and Asher 1996; Rose and Asher 2004). In contrast, boys value strength and dominance and hold more selfinterested goals (Chung and Asher 1996; Jarvinen and Nicholls 1996; Rose and Asher 2004). Accordingly, girls may be more concerned about the status of their relationships and peers evaluations of them (Rose and Rudolph 2006), whereas boys may be more concerned with their status in the larger peer group (Bakker et al. 2010). Therefore, peer victimization aimed to damage relationships (e.g., social manipulation) may be more distressing to girls, while victimization intended to challenge strength and dominance (e.g., physical victimization) may be more upsetting to boys. In line with these ideas, Galen and Underwood (1997) found that girls rated hypothetical vignettes of social victimization, which included experiences of social manipulation and social rebuff, as more hurtful than boys did. However, girls rated social and physical victimization as equally hurtful, whereas boys rated physical victimization as more hurtful than social victimization. Additionally, Paquette and Underwood (1999) observed that girls rated social victimization as more emotionally distressing than boys, and the relation between social victimization and self-concept was stronger for girls than for boys. However, Rudolph (2002) found that social and overt (physical and verbal) types of peer victimization both contribute to greater emotional difficulties in girls than in boys. Despite these mixed findings, we hypothesized that girls would display greater reactivity in their negative emotions to social manipulation, while boys would show more emotional reactivity to physical victimization. Peer Rejection Peer-rejected children are often excluded from peer interaction (Buhs et al. 2006), which may limit their opportunities to practice and develop critical social skills (Hartup 1983), such as modulating their emotions among peers. According to multiple theorists, rejected children tend to be more reactive and less able to self-regulate during distressing social situations (Coie 1990; Halberstadt et al. 2001; Hubbard and Dearing 2004). The links between peer rejection and emotional functioning may be bidirectional in nature (Underwood 1997); for instance, strong emotional displays may invite rejection by peers, which in turn, may exacerbate future emotional reactivity. According to research, peer-rejected children tend to express more anger in response to peer-induced stress than average-status children (Hubbard 2001). Peer rejection has also been linked to less adaptive emotion regulation, as rated by others (Maszk et al. 1999) and observed during a stressful task (Trentacosta and Shaw 2009). In addition, short-term longitudinal studies point toward two-way paths between peer rejection and emotional functioning (e.g., Dill et al. 2004; Maszk et al. 1999). Based on this theory and research, we hypothesized that children higher in peer rejection would display greater reactivity to peer victimization in their negative daily emotions. Sex by Peer Rejection Finally, we explored whether sex and peer rejection interact to moderate emotional reactivity to peer victimization. That is, we tested whether peer rejection is a stronger indicator of emotional reactivity to different types of victimization for one sex versus the other. While boys and girls both experience rejection by peers, boys tend to experience higher rates of peer rejection (Coie et al. 1990). Different patterns of social cognitions and social behaviors are also associated with peer rejection in boys than in girls (Dodge and Feldman 1990). However, we were unable to locate

4 1092 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: studies that specifically assessed the relations among children s sex, peer rejection, and emotional functioning. Per Rose and Rudolph (2006), certain social behaviors have different consequences across sex. Specifically, sexdeviant behaviors are more likely to contribute to problematic peer relations. Pertaining to this study, if certain emotional displays are less normative for one sex, such as crying by boys (Zeman and Garber 1996) or angry outbursts by girls (Hubbard 2001), they may be more strongly associated with peer rejection for that sex. For instance, intense displays of anger could be a stronger correlate of peer rejection in girls, while prominent fear responses could be a stronger correlate in boys. Thus, peer rejection might be a marker of elevated reactivity to peer victimization in different emotions for boys and girls. Given this complexity and lack of previous research, we explored whether sex and peer rejection interacted to moderate emotional reactivity to victimization, without making specific hypotheses. Summary of Study Aims and Hypotheses The current study had three aims. First, we first tested our hypothesis that the five proposed types of peer victimization would emerge as separate yet co-occurring daily experiences. Second, we evaluated our prediction that a variety of daily peer victimization experiences would be linked to increased negative emotion during the school day. Third, we examined whether sex and peer rejection moderate children semotional reactivity to daily victimization. We specifically tested whether girls would be more reactive to social manipulation, while boys would be more reactive to physical victimization, and that children higher in peer rejection would be generally more reactive to peer victimization. Method Participants were recruited from eight fifth-grade public school classrooms from four schools in one school district within a Mid-Atlantic state. Two schools are located in suburban areas, while the other two are situated in more urban settings. Consent forms were distributed to 225 children, and 201 returned them. Of these children, 188 received their parents permission to participate. Prior to data collection, six of the children transferred out of the participating classrooms, and one child was removed due to missing background information. The final sample consisted of 181 children (104 boys and 77 girls). The following racial/ethnic groups were reported: 35 % White, 31 % Black, 17 % Hispanic, 9 % Mixed, 3 % Asian, and 1 % American Indian; 4 % of the children were missing data on race-ethnicity due to their parents decision to skip this question on a demographics questionnaire. Across the school district, 39 % of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, and all participating schools were designated by the district as low income. Procedure Data collection took place in the late fall and early winter of one school year. We spent 4 to 5 weeks collecting data from each classroom. In the first 2 weeks, daily data were gathered from each child for up to 8 days. A majority of these data were collected across consecutive school days; however, several children missed daily collections. We returned to their schools over the next 1 or 2 weeks to collect as many daily observations as possible (up to eight total). Overall, 166 children provided data on eight school days, whereas 15 children provided data on at least three (but fewer than 8) days. In the 4th or 5th week, we returned to each classroom one final time to collect peer nominations of peer rejection. The principal investigator or a graduate-level research assistant (accompanied by two undergraduate assistants) groupadministered all measures to participating children in each classroom. The undergraduate assistants circulated within the classrooms to answer questions or read measures aloud to small groups of children identified by their teachers as having reading difficulties. Approximately 10 to 15 children required assistance with reading. All measures were collected in the final 30 min of each school day and took roughly 10 min to complete. A child assent form was administered on the first daily collection, and we verbally reminded participants of their right to withdraw during each subsequent collection. Measures Daily Negative Emotions Four items were used to assess children s daily sadness, anger, embarrassment, and nervousness. Three items (sad, mad, and nervous) were drawn from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999) and adapted to assess daily sadness, anger, and nervousness, respectively. The PANAS-C has been adapted for daily reporting in several previous studies involving preadolescents (e.g., Silk et al. 2003). One additional item (embarrassed) was added to capture feelings of daily embarrassment. Children were asked to rate the degree to which they felt each emotion today at school on a five-point scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (some), 4 (pretty much), and 5 (very much). Higher scores indicate stronger feelings of each negative emotion. Daily Peer Victimization Children reported their daily peer victimization experiences using a newly developed checklist with five proposed subscales: physical victimization, verbal

5 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: victimization, social manipulation, property attacks, and social rebuff. To construct this checklist, we borrowed 16 items from Mynard and Joseph s (2000) self-report scale, which includes four, four-item subscales (physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, and property attacks). Because these items were developed for English youth, we reworded several to sound more familiar to U.S. children. We borrowed three items from Sandstrom and Cillessen s (2003) checklist to create a social rebuff subscale and moved one of Mynard and Joseph s social manipulation items (A kid refused to talk to me) to our social rebuff subscale. Finally, we added one item (When I tried to play with one kid, another kid would not let me) from Sandstrom and Cillessen s checklist to our social manipulation subscale. By taking these steps, the daily checklist included five, four-item subscales representing each of the five proposed subtypes of peer victimization (Table 1). For each item, children were asked to circle the number of times (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or more) that they experienced a victimization event today at school. As described in the Results section, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of this measure at the level of daily items, which supported our hypothesized five-factor solution. Accordingly, daily scores were computed for each subtype of peer victimization by summing children s responses within subscale for each day. We examined the reliability of the daily peer victimization subscales using two methods (Table 2). First, we calculated an aggregate index of internal consistency by averaging the daily alphas for each subscale. The average daily internal consistency was acceptable for all five types of peer victimization (average daily α= ). Second, we performed a novel procedure to evaluate the psychometric properties of daily report measures (Cranford et al. 2006; Wenze et al. 2009). The first step is to run an analysis of variance model to decompose the variance of a daily measure into four components: between-person, within-person, item, and error. Next, these variances are used to compute reliability estimates utilizing formulas developed by Cranford and colleagues (2006). We computed between- and within-person reliability coefficients for each victimization subscale. The between-person coefficients represent how reliably each scale captured childlevel differences in peer victimization between children, while the within-person coefficients reflect how reliably each scale measured day-to-day fluctuation of peer victimization within children. Both coefficients were acceptable for all five types of victimization (Iida et al. 2012). More specifically, 70 to 79 % of between-child variation in victimization was reliably captured by the subscales, while 62 to 79 % of daily change in victimization was captured reliably. Peer Rejection Peer rejection was assessed using unlimited peer nominations of liking and disliking. Children nominated classmates whom they like a lot and those whom they don t Table 1 Daily peer victimization items Type Number Item Physical victimization 1 A kid hit or pushed me. 2 Akidkickedme. 3 Another kid beat me up. 4 A kid hurt my body in some other way. Verbal victimization 5 A kid called me mean names. 6 A kid said something mean about me. 7 A kid made fun of the way I look. 8 A kid made fun of me for other some reason. Social manipulation 9 A kid tried to get me in trouble with my friends. 10 A kid tried to make my friends turn against me. 11 When I tried to play with one kid, another kid would not let me. 12 A kid made other people not talk to me. Property attacks 13 A kid took something of mine without permission. 14 A kid tried to break something of mine. 15 Another kid stole something from me. 16 A kid damaged something of mine on purpose. Social rebuff 17 A kid ignored me. 18 Akidrefusedtotalktome. 19 Kids wouldn t let me join their game. 20 Kids had a secret and would not tell me.

6 1094 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: Table 2 Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates Level-1 (Daily) M (SD) Level-2 (Child) M (SD) Level-2 (Child) Range Level-2 (Child) Skewness Internal consistency Between-person reliability Within-person reliability Sadness 1.33 (0.83) 1.33 (0.50) Anger 1.64 (1.12) 1.64 (0.71) Embarrassment 1.20 (0.62) 1.20 (0.37) Nervousness 1.34 (0.81) 1.33 (0.50) Physical victimization 0.55 (1.69) 0.57 (1.24) Verbal victimization 0.94 (2.54) 0.98 (1.94) Social manipulation 0.52 (1.74) 0.53 (1.36) Property attacks 0.50 (1.58) 0.51 (1.17) Social rebuff 0.72 (1.99) 0.74 (1.58) Peer rejection 0.03 (1.00) At Level 1, descriptive statistics were computed from the full matrix of daily data. At Level 2, descriptive statistics were computed after aggregating all available daily data within each child to yield one average daily score for each variable for every child. Internal consistency was estimated by calculating separate alphas for all eight days and then averaging these values. Between-person reliability is an estimate of how reliably a daily scale captures traitlevel variability; within-person reliability is an estimate of reliably a scale captures within-person variability across days (Cranford et al. 2006) like very much. These nominations have been validated in many previous studies (e.g., Parker and Asher 1993). A class participation rate of at least 50 % is indicated to collect accurate data for sociometric rejection (McKown et al. 2011). In this study, at least 72 % of the children in each classroom completed these nominations. Peer rejection scores were computed following procedures validated by multiple researchers (e.g., Coie and Dodge 1983; Crick and Grotpeter 1995). First, we tallied the number of liking and disliking nominations received by each child and then standardized these scores within each classroom. Next, we calculated social preference scores by subtracting children s standardized disliking score from their standardized liking scores. Lastly, we multiplied the social preference scores by negative one and re-standardized them in each classroom; higher scores indicate greater levels of peer rejection. Results Our data are organized in two levels. Level 1 (daily level) includes 1,413 daily reports, and Level 2 (child level) includes 181 children who provided the daily reports. Thus, the daily observations are nested within children. Nested data are typically interdependent; that is, data from the same higher-level unit (e.g., within one child) tend to correlate more strongly than data from different units (e.g., between two children). Failure to account for interdependence yields biased standard error estimates and increased risk of Type I errors (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Therefore, we took multiple steps in our analyses to account for interdependence in our data. Multiple Types of Daily Peer Victimization We investigated the factor structure of the daily peer victimization measure by performing several confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in Mplus 5.1 (Muthén and Muthén 2007). Each model included 20 indicators corresponding to the 20 daily items. To account for the nested structure of our data, we group centered all daily items by subtracting children s mean item scores (aggregated across all available days) from their daily item scores. This approach removed Level-2 variation from each indicator and allowed us to examine a single matrix of daily data that included only Level-1 variation (for a discussion, see Thompson and Bolger 1999). With this approach, it was not necessary to run separate models for each individual day. All 20 indicators were significantly skewed (skewness = ); we attempted to normalize them with three transformations (logarithmic, square root, and negative reciprocal), but none reduced skewness across all indicators. Therefore, we tested each model with the raw indicators using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). This approach allowed us to obtain parameter estimates, standard errors, and chi-square statistics that were robust to nonnormality. To evaluate model fit, we examined the chisquare statistic, along with three alternate indices: the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). RMSEA values less than or equal to 0.06, CFI values greater than or equal to 0.95, and SRMR values less than 0.08 indicate reasonable model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). We began by testing our hypothesized model (Fig. 1) that included five correlated factors each measured by four

7 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: , p<0.001; RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.85; SRMR=0.06; however, the hypothesized model again fit significantly better, SB Δχ 2 (4)=34.11, p< Collectively, these results suggest that the hypothesized five-factor model provides a reasonable representation of the structure of the daily peer victimization measure. Thus, we summed the daily items within each of the five victimization subtypes and used these variables for all subsequent analyses. Descriptive Analyses, Demographic Tests, and Correlations Fig. 1 Hypothesized five-factor CFA model for the daily peer victimization checklist. Indicator labels correspond with the item numbers in Table 1. Factor loadings are standardized. All loadings and correlations are significant at p<0.01 indicators. This model fit the data relatively well, χ 2 (160)= , p<0.001; RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.88; SRMR=0.06. All standardized factor loadings were significant and greater than Additionally, all factor correlations were positive and significant, yet did not indicate excessive overlap ( ). We then tested two competing models and compared them to the hypothesized model using Satorra and Bentler s (2001) formula for evaluating chi-square differences with MLR (SB Δχ 2 ). In the first competing model, all 20 indicators loaded onto a single factor, χ 2 (170)=732.30, p<0.001; RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.62; SRMR=0.08. In this model, six standardized loadings fell below Additionally, the hypothesized model fit significantly better, SB Δχ 2 (10)=250.78, p< In the second competing model, social manipulation and social rebuff were merged into one factor due to their conceptual similarity. This model fit the data relatively well, χ 2 (164)= Descriptive statistics are provided for all variables in Table 2. Means and standard deviations are presented at both levels for the daily peer victimization and negative emotion variables. To compute these descriptive statistics at Level 2, we first aggregated the available daily data to yield one average daily score for each variable for every child. For instance, we aggregated children s daily reports of sadness to find their average daily sadness scores, from which we computed Level-2 descriptive statistics. Next, we explored sex differences by conducting independent-sample t tests for variables at Level 2. There were no significant differences for peer victimization, but two significant differences emerged for negative emotions. Girls reported higher levels of sadness (girls M=1.42; boys M= 1.26; t(179) = 2.23, p<0.05) and nervousness (girls M= 1.42; boys M=1.26; t(179)= 2.15, p<0.05). Boys were nominated by peers as significantly higher in peer rejection (boys M=0.16; girls M= 0.30; t(179)=3.15, p<0.01). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore racial/ethnic differences for all of the variables at Level 2. Eight children were excluded from this analysis; seven were missing data for race/ethnicity, and one was removed because he was the only Native American child. No significant racial/ethnic differences appeared in any of the daily variables or peer rejection. Finally, we computed bivariate correlations between peer rejection and all of the victimization and emotion variables aggregated at Level 2. Peer rejection evidenced positive correlations with just three other variables: embarrassment (r=0.21, p<0.01), nervousness (r=0.18, p<0.05), and verbal victimization (r=0.16, p<0.05). Daily Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions For the remainder of our analyses, we utilized multilevel regression via HLM 7 (Raudenbush et al. 2011). Multilevel regression accounts for interdependence in nested data by partitioning the variance of a dependent variable across each level (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). This approach allowed us to model the unique effect of peer victimization on negative emotion for each child and then obtain an overall estimate of the degree to which daily negative emotion covaries with daily victimization.

8 1096 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: First, we tested a series of two-level models to estimate the relations of each type of victimization with every emotion (Table 3). In each model, one negative emotion was specified as the dependent variable, and one type of victimization was entered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Based on our previous findings, sex was included as a Level-2 covariate predicting sadness and nervousness, and peer rejection was included as a Level-2 covariate predicting embarrassment and nervousness. Sex was dummy coded (boys = 0; girls = 1). All predictors were entered uncentered for all subsequent analyses. s and slopes were estimated for each model. represents the average level of negative emotion when no victimization experiences are reported and the two covariates (if included) equal zero. When sex is included, the intercept reflects the average level of negative emotion for boys (boys = 0). Because peer rejection was standardized, when it is included in a model, the intercept reflects the average level of negative emotion for children with the mean level of peer rejection for their class. The victimization slopes represent the average change in daily negative emotion for one additional victimization experience. Each peer victimization variable positively predicted every negative emotion. Therefore, children reported higher levels of each emotion on days they reported higher frequencies of each type of victimization. As an example, the estimated intercept for the model of physical victimization on anger suggests that children report an average anger level of 1.56 on days they report no instances of physical victimization. The slope estimate indicates that children report an average increase of 0.14 in daily anger for every additional experience of physical victimization. We then calculated the proportion of variance explained at Level 1 in each model (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). The following percentages indicate the amount of variation in daily emotions explained by daily victimization. Physical victimization accounted for the following: sadness (7 %), anger (4 %), embarrassment (8 %), and nervousness (14 %). Verbal victimization accounted for the following: sadness (13 %), anger (8 %), embarrassment (20 %), and nervousness (7 %). Social manipulation accounted for the following: sadness (2 %), anger (6 %), embarrassment (18 %), and nervousness (7 %). Property attacks accounted for the following: sadness (5 %), anger (3 %), embarrassment (9 %), and nervousness (8 %). Social rebuff accounted for the Table 3 Multilevel regression: separate relations of daily peer victimization with daily negative emotions Sadness Anger Embarrassment Nervousness B SE B SE B SE B SE Physical victimization Verbal victimization Social manipulation Property attacks Social rebuff Average daily emotion 1.21** ** ** ** 0.05 Slope Average physical victimization slope 0.10** ** * ** 0.04 Average daily emotion 1.19** ** ** ** 0.04 Slope Average verbal victimization slope 0.07** ** ** * 0.02 Average daily emotion 1.23** ** ** ** 0.05 Slope Average social manipulation slope 0.07* ** ** ** 0.03 Average daily emotion 1.22** ** ** ** 0.04 Slope Average property attacks slope 0.07* ** * * 0.03 Average daily emotion 1.22** ** ** ** 0.04 Slope Average social rebuff slope 0.09** ** * ** 0.02 B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 178 to 180. *p<0.01. **p< Sex was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models of sadness and nervousness. Peer rejection was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models of embarrassment and nervousness

9 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: following: sadness (6 %), anger (5 %), embarrassment (6 %), and nervousness (5 %). Next, we examined the relative relations of the peer victimization variables with each negative emotion to determine whether certain victimization experiences account for greater variation in children s daily negative emotions (Table 4). We ran four two-level models, in which one negative emotion was specified as the dependent variable, and the five victimization variables were simultaneously entered as Level-1 predictors with random slopes. Again, sex was included as a Level-2 covariate predicting sadness and nervousness, while peer rejection was included as a Level-2 covariate predicting embarrassment and nervousness. The intercepts for these models represent the average level of negative emotion when none of the five types of victimization are reported and all covariates (if included) equal zero. Five slopes were estimated for each model, which reflect the average change in daily negative emotion for one additional victimization experience, while accounting for the effects of every other type of victimization. Physical victimization positively predicted all four negative emotions, verbal victimization positively predicted anger and embarrassment, and social rebuff positively predicted nervousness. For example, the estimated intercept for the anger model suggests that children report an average anger level of 1.47 on days they report no victimization of any type. The significant slope estimates indicate that children report an average increase of 0.08 in daily anger for every additional physical victimization experience and an average increase of 0.05 for every additional instance of verbal victimization. Finally, we calculated the proportion of variance explained at Level 1 by the five peer victimization variables in each model (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). These percentages reflect the amount of Level-1 variance jointly accounted for by all five types of peer victimization. Together the victimization subtypes accounted for the following percentages of Level-1 variance: sadness (21 %), anger (15 %), embarrassment (39 %), and nervousness (30 %). Moderators of Emotional Reactivity to Daily Peer Victimization Finally, we examined whether sex or peer rejection moderated the relations of peer victimization with negative emotions (Table 5). That is, we tested whether sex or peer rejection moderated emotional reactivity to peer victimization. We tested two sets of two-level models. In the first set, we examined whether sex and peer rejection individually moderated emotional reactivity to victimization; in the second set, we explored whether sex and peer rejection interactively moderated emotional reactivity to victimization. By testing the models in this sequence, we sought to mirror the process of block-entry regression in HLM 7. Notably, we did not calculate proportions of variance explained for these models due to the complications that arise when testing complex multilevel models (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). In the first set of models, one negative emotion was specified as the dependent variable, and one victimization subtype was entered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Sex and peer rejection were included as Level-2 covariates of the negative emotion intercept and as Level-2 predictors of the Table 4 Multilevel regression: Relative relations of daily peer victimization with daily negative emotions Sadness Anger Embarrassment Nervousness B SE B SE B SE B SE Average daily emotion 1.16*** *** ** ** 0.03 Physical victimization slope Average physical victimization slope 0.08* ** * ** 0.04 Verbal victimization slope Average verbal victimization slope * * Social manipulation slope Average social manipulation slope Property attacks slope Average property attacks slope Social rebuff slope Average social rebuff slope * 0.03 B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 178 to 180. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p< Sex was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models of sadness and nervousness. Peer rejection was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models of embarrassment and nervousness

10 1098 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: Table 5 Multilevel regression: Moderating effects of sex and peer rejection on the relations between peer victimization and negative emotions Sadness Anger Embarrassment Nervousness B SE B SE B SE B SE Average daily emotion 1.21*** *** *** *** 0.05 Physical victimization (PV) slope Average PV slope * ** 0.04 Effect of sex on PV slope ** Effect of peer rejection on PV slope 0.11** *** ** ** 0.03 Effect of sex X peer rejection on PV slope 0.14* *** * 0.04 Average daily emotion 1.18** *** *** *** 0.04 Verbal victimization (VV) slope Average VV slope *** Effect of sex on VV slope Effect of peer rejection on VV slope 0.08** *** * 0.02 Effect of sex X peer rejection on VV slope 0.12** ** 0.03 Average daily emotion 1.23*** *** *** *** 0.05 Social manipulation (SM) slope Average SM slope *** Effect of sex on SM slope 0.10* Effect of peer rejection on SM slope ** * 0.03 Effect of sex X peer rejection on SM slope Average daily emotion 1.22*** *** *** *** 0.04 Property attacks (PA) slope Average PA slope *** * 0.04 Effect of sex on PA slope Effect of peer rejection on PA slope 0.06* * *** 0.03 Effect of sex X peer rejection on PA slope Average daily emotion 1.21*** *** *** *** 0.04 Social rebuff (SR) slope Average SR slope ** * * 0.03 Effect of sex on SR slope Effect of peer rejection on SR slope 0.08* Effect of sex X peer rejection on SR slope 0.09* 0.05 B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 177 to 178. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p< Sex was dummy coded (boys = 0; girls = 1). Sex and peer rejection were included as a covariates of the daily emotion intercept in all models victimization slope. In contrast with the previous models, we included sex and peer rejection as Level-2 covariates in all models to permit us to explore significant interactions in the next set of models (Preacher et al. 2006). As Level-2 predictors of the victimization slopes, sex and peer rejection reflect two-way cross-level interaction terms (Bauer and Curran 2005). By including these interactions, we tested whether sex or peer rejection account for individual differences in the daily covariation of victimization and emotion. This allowed us to test our hypotheses that boys and girls would vary in their emotional reactivity to certain types of victimization, as would children who differ in their rejection by peers. We then tested a second set of models by adding the interaction of sex and peer rejection to the first set. Specifically, we entered this interaction (sex X peer rejection) as a Level-2 covariate of the negative emotion intercept and as Level-2 predictor of the victimization slope. As a Level-2 predictor of the victimization slopes, sex X peer rejection

11 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42: represents a three-way cross-level interaction term (Bauer and Curran 2005) that allowed us to explore whether peer rejection moderates emotional reactivity to victimization in distinct ways for boys and girls. In Table 5, we present results of models including the three-way interaction only when it was significant. Otherwise, we display the results of the first set of models. In these models, the intercepts reflect the average level of negative emotion for boys of average peer rejection on days when no peer victimization is reported. The victimization slopes represent the average change in negative emotion for every additional experience of victimization, while accounting for the effects of sex, peer rejection, and their interaction. These models also yield estimates of the effects of sex, peer rejection, and sex X peer rejection on the victimization slopes, which indicated whether these variables moderated children s emotional reactivity to victimization. We examined significant cross-level interactions with an online tool designed to probe interactive effects in multilevel regression (Preacher et al. 2006); we did not interpret significant two-way interactions when three-way interactions were significant. Sex Accounting for peer rejection, sex moderated children s emotional reactivity in just one model. Specifically, sex moderated the degree to which children s daily sadness covaried with their social manipulation experiences. An analysis of simple slopes indicated that the daily relation of social manipulation and sadness was positive and significant for girls (b=0.12, t(178)=3.45, p<0.001) but nonsignificant for boys (b=0.02, t(178)=0.79, p=0.43). Thus, girls displayed reactivity in daily sadness to social manipulation, whereas boys did not. Peer Rejection Accounting for sex, peer rejection moderated reactivity in nervousness to four types of victimization (physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, and property attacks), in embarrassment to two types (social manipulation and property attacks), and in sadness to property attacks. To probe these effects, we tested and graphed simple slopes for peer rejection values falling one standard deviation above and below the mean (high and low peer rejection, respectively). For all significant interactions, the victimization slope was positive and significant for high peer rejection (b= , t(178)= , p<0.01) but nonsignificant for low peer rejection (b= , t(178)= , p>0.50). Compared to low-rejected children, high-rejected children appear more reactive in several negative emotions to multiple types of victimization, particularly to property attacks. Sex by Peer Rejection Lastly, we explored whether sex and peer rejection interacted to moderate emotional reactivity to peer victimization. That is, we tested whether peer rejection is a stronger indicator of emotional reactivity to victimization for one sex than the other. Together, sex and peer rejection moderated reactivity in sadness to three types of victimization (physical victimization, verbal victimization, and social rebuff), in embarrassment to two types (physical and verbal victimization), and in anger to physical victimization. To probe the models with significant three-way interactions, we tested six corresponding models separately for boys and girls. In each model, one negative emotion was specified as the dependent variable, and one victimization variable was entered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Peer rejection was included as a Level-2 covariate of the emotion intercept and as a Level-2 predictor of the victimization slope. These models allowed us to examine the moderating effect of peer rejection on emotional reactivity to victimization independently for boys and girls. Peer rejection was a significant moderator in each model for boys (B= , t(102)= , p<0.01) but nonsignificant for girls (B= , t(75)= , p>0.10). We then tested simple slopes for high and low peer rejection for boys using Preacher and colleagues (2006) tool. Post-hoc analyses revealed that peer rejection moderated the six victimization slopes for boys, such that every slope was positive and significant at high levels of peer rejection (b= , t(177)= , p<0.01) but nonsignificant at low levels (b= , t(177)= , p>0.29). Therefore, boys high in peer rejection evidenced emotional reactivity to victimization, whereas boys low in peer rejection did not. Conversely, peer rejection was not a significant moderator for girls; thus, high- and low-rejected girls did not vary in their emotional reactivity to victimization. Discussion The current study aimed to advance our understanding of preadolescents day-to-day encounters with peer victimization. First, we used daily-report methods to assess a wide range of peer victimization experiences and test the distinctiveness of multiple subtypes of victimization. Second, we examined the daily connections of peer victimization and emotional functioning by evaluating the degree to which children s daily negative emotions fluctuated with their daily victimization experiences. Third, we explored whether two child variables (sex and peer rejection) moderated children s daily emotional reactivity to peer victimization. Consistent with our hypothesis, the daily peer victimization checklist was reasonably represented by five factors: physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, property attacks, and social rebuff. By testing a series of competing models, we found support for distinction among the five victimization subtypes. In line with previous studies (e.g., Mynard and Joseph 2000), verbal victimization was reported most frequently. All five types of victimization were